The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:
Plaintiff, Michael Brojer ("Plaintiff"), filed this action pro se on May 11, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of his wife, Annamma Brojer ("Annamma"), alleging that defendants Anne and George Kuriakose (together, the "Kuriakose Defendants") trafficked Annamma and held her against her will at their home in Suffolk County.*fn1 By Order dated June 27, 2011, the action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to this Court. (See Transfer Order, dated June 27, 2011, Preska, D.J.).
Plaintiff also alleges that the other Defendants, the offices of the U.S. Department of State, the United States Department of Homeland Security's Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") and ICE Division (collectively, the "Federal Defendants"), failed to respond to his requests for prosecution of the Kuriakoses. He seeks to have his wife's visa violation removed and "to see if my rights of due process was block[ed] by state dep[ar]t[ment] and USCIS and ICE." (Compl. at ¶ V).
Accompanying the Complaint is an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review of the Plaintiff's declaration supporting the application, Plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis solely for the purpose of this Order. For the reasons that follow, an Amended Complaint or a notice of appearance by counsel must be filed within sixty (60) days of this Order.
Plaintiff's sparse Complaint concerns his wife, Annamma.
Plaintiff alleges that the Kuriakose Defendants contracted with a trafficker named "Cutchimon" located in Elmont, New York to traffic Annamma to the United States from India. (Compl. at ¶ III). Plaintiff claims that Annamma was held her against her will at the Kuriakose Defendants' home in Suffolk County from October 1996 to December 2002. (Id.). According to the Complaint, Annamma's passport was returned to her "after the contract was fulfilled." Id. Although Plaintiff does not describe what next occurred, presumably Annamma was deported to India in June 2003. (Id.).
Plaintiff alleges that the U.S. State Department advised him that the "immigration papers are not ours" and that he has been told by "two senators office[s]" that "your wife has no rights." (Id.) He states that "every time I ask where to report the crime no answer and no response." (Id.).
Plaintiff claims no injuries in his Complaint, but requests the following relief: "If Court can have VISA violation pulled on wife due to trafficking and being held in servitude and to see if my rights of due process was block[ed] by state dept. and USCIS and ICE." (Compl. at ¶ V).
A. In Forma Pauperis Application
Upon review of the Plaintiff's application, this Court
finds that Plaintiff's financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
B. Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 Section 1915 of Title 28 requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). The Court is required to dismiss the action as soon as it makes such a determination. See id. Section 1915(e), as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, applies to both prisoner and non-prisoner in forma pauperis actions. See Burns v. Goodwill Indus. of Greater New York, No. 01-CV-11311, 2002 WL 1431704, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2002). In reviewing the Complaint, the Court is mindful that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and that his pleadings should be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185, ...